Today's reading brings us back to the theme of Gospel poverty, which Jesus regards above all as a spiritual state. The question of unrighteous wealth has been relevant in every age, and the steward in the parable quoted in this passage naturally knew perfectly well that...
Today's reading brings us back to the theme of Gospel poverty, which Jesus regards above all as a spiritual state. The question of unrighteous wealth has been relevant in every age, and the steward in the parable quoted in this passage naturally knew perfectly well what a person who had broken the eighth commandment was required to do: he had to return what he had stolen and add something beyond the amount taken. This is precisely what the thieving steward does. When his master is already prepared to dismiss him (vv. 1–3), he thinks about his future and not only returns everything stolen to his master, but at the same time lightens the burden of his master's debtors in order to earn their gratitude (vv. 4–7). Thus this man not only atones for his own sin, but also does good to his neighbours. It is hardly surprising that such conduct restores his master's trust in him: a person who not only returns what he stole, but also helps his neighbours can be trusted, and such repentance deserves praise (v. 8).
The problem of wealth is thus placed in the context of relationships and priorities. Even when wealth has been acquired dishonestly, or, to put it simply, when it is stolen, the main point is not its redistribution in itself, but helping particular people and thereby establishing (or restoring) relationships with them, without which a person finds that he has nowhere to go. In this case, as in all others, the central question is one of priorities, of what matters more: relationships with God and other people, or wealth. Jesus speaks of this directly at the end of the parable (vv. 9–13).
The same applies to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (vv. 19–31), but here the question of wealth is considered in the context of the messianic and eschatological perspective. The path of the rich man and the path of the poor man are shown in keeping with the traditional biblical idea of two ways, one of which leads to the Kingdom, “to Abraham's bosom” (v. 22), while the other leads to Sheol, the world of shadows, from which there is no escape and whose inhabitants have no path to the Kingdom (vv. 23–26; Sheol is called “hell” here). The meaning of the parable is perfectly transparent: wealth hid a human being from its owner and, together with that person, the Kingdom as well. For the rich man everything begins and ends in our limited world, where he receives everything, but where neither the Kingdom nor eternal life can be found. And no evidence will persuade someone who is not ready to break through the boundaries of the untransformed world (vv. 27–31), for each person chooses his own path and receives what he has chosen.
